A Campaign to end injustice in
Medical Assessments for
Disabled People.

This powerful report echoes many of the problems our members continue to face with medical practitioners, resulting in humiliation, distress, the loss of benefit entitlements and financial hardship. We acknowledge the difficulties faced are not unique to ME. However there is evidence that people with ME are presented with the extra burden of a poor attitude towards the illness itself.

The more people giving your experiences will help to highlight the problems and add strength to the lobby for improving services. DIAL UK are providing a welcome platform to raise these issues at a national level. We would encourage anyone experiencing difficulties to contact DIAL UK on 01302 310 123 or e-mail: [email protected]. They will be able to give you the number of your nearest office.( We also have a list at the office). They are working hard on behalf of all people with a disability - by sharing your experiences with them you will be adding strength to their negotiations with the Department of Health and SchlumbergerSema to improve services.

“ A Bitter Pill” report launched by DIAL UK on 24th June 2002

The launch of this report took place on Wednesday 29th May 2002 at the House of Lords. Attended by members of the Parliamentary All Party Disability Group, representatives from national disability and advice organisations, Department of Health, SchlumbergerSema and members of the DIAL network.

Speakers included:

Baroness Masham of Ilton.
The President of DIAL UK who is a member of the All Party Disability Group and active disability campaigner in the House of Lords, she spoke about the importance of the work DIAL
UK had done in highlighting the poor quality of medical assessments and the impact this had on the lives of disabled people.

Andy Short.
Director of DIAL UK gave some background on why DIAL UK had undertaken the “Bitter Pill” campaign. Problems with Medical Services had been amongst the top three concerns highlighted by the network in the last two years. The report was the product of six months research, gathering evidence from members of the DIAL network as well as other disability groups.

Lucy Birkinshaw.
DIAL UK Social Policy Worker presented the problems being reported by disabled people, some of the examples contained within the report and the recommendations that DIAL UK have made to improve Medical Services.

Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Chair of the All Party Disability Group thanked DIAL UK for tackling the issue of Medical Services, a topic that had been of concern to the APDG for several years, and congratulated DIAL UK on their report. Lord Ashley went on to say that the Government should fully implement ALL of the recommendations put forward in the report as well as those outlined by the Social Security Select Committee in April 2000. Only by doing this would the present abuses of disabled people by Medical Services doctors be ended. Lord Ashley pledged the ongoing support of the APDG on this issue.

Finally, Andy Short thanked all those groups who had submitted evidence to the campaign and thanked Lord Ashley and Baroness Masham for their support of DIAL UK’s work.

Response from SchlumbergerSema.
Dr Carol Hudson stated that SchlumbergerSema had met all current contractual targets set by the Government.
They had also put measures in place to improve the training of doctors and the complaints system. Furthermore, the two year extension to the Medical Services contract, recently agreed by the Government, contained more quality measures and targets. Dr Hudson did admit, however, that there was still room for further improvements and SchlumbergerSema hoped to continue the dialogue that had been set up between themselves and DIAL UK to address any problems.

The launch of the report is by no means the end of the line for the campaign. SchlumbergerSema will be meeting with the Department of Work and Pensions officials to look at the report. It is expected that they will produce an official response to the report and its recommendations.

At DIAL UK we will continue to work closely with the Parliamentary All Party Disability Group in putting the issue of Medical Services on the political agenda and pushing for changes. We intend to have ongoing meetings with SchlumbergerSema to give them feedback from disabled people, learn of any new developments and work with them on future improvements to the service.

A great deal of interest was expressed in the report from other disability and advice organisations. We will be keeping them updated with developments and sending out monitoring forms so that their members can contribute to the pool of evidence. As we will be having ongoing discussions with SchlumbergerSema about the problems with Medical Services, we will be continuing to monitor problems in order to keep up the pressure to bring about improvements in the quality of medical assessments for disabled people.

A big THANK YOU to all those DIALs and others who have put time and energy into this campaign so far. Your input has been vital in taking the campaign forward. If you want a copy of the report please e-mail [email protected] with the following details: Name, Address, Telephone numbers. Report cost £10.

A copy of the Executive Summary of “A Bitter Pill” is reproduced here.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“A Bitter Pill”

Background

The Government spends over £19 billion each year on disability and incapacity benefits aimed at providing support and financial security for some of the most vulnerable people in society. A major factor in deciding a person’s eligibility for these benefits is a medical assessment undertaken by Medical Services doctors.

Originally run by the Benefits Agency, Medical Services have since 1998 been contracted out to the private sector, with the contract awarded to SEMA Group. The contract contained several cost and efficiency targets aimed at improving services, but measures concerning the quality of the service were limited.

The Social Security Select Committee reported in April 2000 that there had not been “any improvements in the quality of reports or examinations since contractorisation”. Recommendations for improvements were put forward for immediate implementation.

Since the Select Committee Report was published, SEMA has put in place some changes to address the problems of poor quality. However, these have not been effective in bringing about significant improvements to the quality and fairness of medical assessments undergone by disabled people.

Evidence

The evidence received by DIAL UK in its ‘Bitter Pill’ campaign relates to benefit claims and assessments which took place after April 2000, following the Social Security Select Committee’s recommendations for improvements to the system of Medical Services. Participants highlight a number of persistent problem areas continuing to affect the lives of disabled people.

Unacceptable shortcomings in the conduct and attitude of doctors during examinations and in examination procedure, and doctor’s lack of sensitivity towards people from ethnic minority groups or those with mental health conditions cause pain, distress and sometimes a worsening of medical condition.

Inadequate or inaccurate reports lead to wrong benefit decisions, denying benefit to those entitled, causing financial hardship, and triggering a lengthy, stressful and costly appeals process.

Disabled people are frequently unaware of their rights during examination and of the availability of a complaints procedure. They are often mistrustful of SEMA’s independence from their benefit decision. Where the complaints procedure is used, they express dissatisfaction with response and outcome.

Where under-performing doctors are identified, remedial systems have been insufficiently effective.

Conclusions

DIAL UK believes that the recommendations of the Select Committee should be fully and adequately implemented. Further steps also need to be taken by SEMA to address disabled people’s distrust in the system. Comprehensive, independent information, access to medical reports for claimants, action against consistently under-performing doctors, and improvements to, and independent scrutiny of, their complaints system would contribute to this process. Government also has a part to play in contracting for and monitoring Medical Services performance, in evaluating services and consulting disabled people and others, and in reviewing the decision to outsource Medical Services to a profit-making company.

It is only by developing a service that is transparent, accountable and focussed on levels of quality that disabled people will receive fair and efficient means of assessing their eligibility for benefits.

Some of the main issues coming out of the evidence were:

• 69% of people felt that not enough time was taken on their medical assessment or that they were not given enough time to fully explain the effect of their disability.
• 31% said that the doctor’s physical examination caused them pain and discomfort.
• 64% of clients were dissatisfied with the accuracy of the doctor’s recording of the client statement. 45% said that the doctor did not cover all disabling conditions in their report and 22% noted that the doctor had recorded results of tests that were not undertaken during assessment.
• In 49% of cases clients were not given the chance to read their statement before signing it and 15% were pressured into signing an incomplete statement.
• 69% felt that the doctor undertaking the assessment ignored their comments/views or those of their carer, partner or support worker.
• 53% of clients found the attitude and conduct of the doctor to be rude, dismissive or otherwise inappropriate.
  
  
  
  We wish to thank DIAL UK for their efforts on behalf of all disabled people, we would like to help them to achieve their goal of fair and efficient means of assessing eligibility for benefits and we would encourage any ME North East member who has experience of unfair treatment to contact DIAL UK.